Lock and load, baby!
WITH UPDATES
There’s no way in hell I’m not blogging about this, moratorium be damned!
No articles are out yet for me to link to, just breaking-news scrolls on CNN and Fox, etc, but the news is that the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. gun ban and affirmed the 2nd Amendment to mean exactly what we think it means.
I’ll update when articles start coming out. Meanwhile, all I have to say say is Yeeeee HAW! Makes me wanna go shootin’!
…
That didn’t take long. Here we go. First the AP article, which I am quoting at length with no shame whatsoever and I’m feeling pretty good about it and they can bill me if they want but should kiss my ass in the meantime:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
That bolded part is a little scary, isn’t it? You wouldn’t want to “limit” the ways the government can tell decent, non-criminal people how to protect themselves? Jesus.
And from the SCOTUS blog:
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.
…
You know, it’s going to be fascinating to see what happens with crime in D.C. God, I can’t wait to watch it go down and to print out articles about it to emotionally abuse my liberal friends with.
…
HuffPo is alarmed! SCOTUS rules in favor of guns and those guns are gonna getcha! Screenshot:
Idiots. The ruling has nothing to do with being “in favor of guns.” It’s to do with giving decent people the right to own tools with which they can defend themselves against scumbags and the government itself. It’s really not that hard to understand.
The more I read about this, the more I am actually disturbed by the fact this was a 5-4 decision. That means four of the most powerful people in the land truly don’t believe the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, and it’s not going to be very fun when President Obama gets to work and flips that ratio hard the other way.
…
From the comments on Ben Smith’s Politico blog (not representative of the whole - most support the ruling - I just thought these were funny):
this is bad for our country. more guns = more violence = more dead cops. good call republicans.
mountain man and gun enthusiast dick cheney shot an old man in the face trying to shoot a wingless bird. this is a bad decision…a WELL REGULATED MILITIA does NOT mean that people should be able to carry handguns at a whim in major US cities that are already plagued by the highest gun violence in the world. god help us all.
…all of the guns that are owned illegally were purchased legally. More guns that can be legally purchased means more guns that will be illegally possessed. This is the problem. They also made it so you don’t have to use trigger locks. This was not well thought out by the US SC.
Funny, the same people hooting and hollering over the gun decision were screaming bloody murder over the death penalty decision yesterday. I always felt that the “militia” interpretation of the Second Amendment was a bit specious, BUT Americans have a fixation with weapons that is dangerously out of whack.
I can pretty much tell that everybody who’s commented thus far is NOT from DC or surrounding areas, because HOLY FREAKING BALLS I’m MOVING! DC is about to become the wild west it once was in the early 90’s. This whole issue is not about left or right, it’s about protecting people and the ban on handguns was doing a great job of that. Now that it’s out the window, get ready for DC to be the murder capitol once again.
…So, in summary, the GOP wants everyone to be armed to the teeth, wants people executed for non-capital crimes, and wants the government to keep people in prison camps indefinitely without even being charged formally with a crime. Today’s GOP is utterly nihilistic and has decided that “every man for himself” isn’t anarachy, it’s their preferred society.
I really hate the pro-gun argument that the people at the drop of a hat will need to rise up against their government. It’s this kind of nihilistic fear that the GOP gins up whenever they can’t win an election on the actual issues. Gee, Timothy McVeigh was defending himself against the government, how did that work out for everyone. If you buy a gun out of a sense of fear of your fellow citizen or your government, you’ll be more inclined to use it one day. Yet people wonder why the US murder rate is among the highest in the world.
…It’s telling that the GOP views gun ownership as being more important than having health insurance.
This is a victory for Conservative Activist Judges who invent rights that don’t exist in the Constitution. They have made the streets of American a little less safe, and are continuing to unwittingly aid drug cartels and terrorists in securing their weapons to be used against american citizens, nice job supremes!
First off it’s NOT a God-Given Right. It’s a government given right. Secondly, you think gun violence is bad now? Let’s look at the stats six months from now when the unbanning is in full effect and people are “protecting” themselves by shooting at each other. You say DC police isn’t on the job, so what, you’re going to take it into your own hands? Like I said, you are a fool. Stay up in your Dupont Circle bungaloo and preach that nonsense.
Reminds me of what Justice Scalia said about the Guantanamo decision two weeks ago : “It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
AWESOME!
I’ll second that goin’ shooting sentiment! (pun intended).
June 26th, 2008 at 9:23 amOhhhhh, YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!
Leaps about for JOYJOYJOY!
This just adds another layer of happy to the task of shopping for rounds for the sweet little LCP that is on its way to me and The Boss as we speak!
Now, SCOTUS is still FUBAR — habeas corpus for illegal enemy combatants, and selective application of the death penalty not to child rapists — but in their capricious decision making process, at least they finally got one right!
June 26th, 2008 at 9:28 amat least they finally got one right!
At 5-4? This one should have been 9-0. Stevens comment regarding limiting the “tools” available to our legislating class to control our lives is frightening. It shows a completely wrong understanding of exactly who our Constitution is designed to protect, and who it is designed to protect us from. The Constitution is intended to do exactly what he laments: protect Citizens from overbearing government. That fact that three others agreed with him is frightening, and will become more so when Obama is selecting new Justices.
BTW, just watch how quickly the Dem majority kills judicial appointment filibusters (the Nuclear Option that prompted McCain’s Band of Brothers moment) when the GOP tries to stop his far left appointments.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:37 amThank God; however, the fact that 4 of the justices dissented is quite frightening. That means 4 of the 9 judges on the highest court in the land can interpret “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.“ as meaning “We can infringe any way we want to because we’re the SCOTUS and you can’t stop us. Nyah, nyah, nyah!”
Dammit, I think I’m gonna have to vote for McCain and then drink heavily for the next 4 to 8 years…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:39 amMr. Stevens is absolutely wrong. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to limit what government can do. What an a$$.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:43 amOh the perfect timing of it all! I’m moving to DC in just 2 weeks (my new office is across from the Holocaust muesum) and I was griping about the gun ban there and how the 2 potheads (code 420) downstair ain’t going to protect my ass. Well, gripe no more!
June 26th, 2008 at 9:50 amComplete awesomeness!!! Though a ruling of only 5-4 does frighten, and makes me wonder if this is only the beginning of a long, protracted battle and will cause the “progressives” to dig in their heels and fight harder to limit the rights of the law abiding…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:56 amAnd I just noticed this gem:
Holy, holy, holy shit. I think I learned in, like 4th grade that the whole POINT of the Constitution was to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of ANYTHING. Am I wrong? Am I misinformed? I’m just flabbergasted here.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:03 amOf course we no longer live in Northern VA…but I’ll be happy to pass this onto my husband that we can carry in DC now.
There were news stories of people in DC chasing robbers down,and pummeling them with bricks because law abiding citizens couldn’t have guns.Well now they can plant bullets in rapists and robbers.
This is the only thing they’ve done right…but child raping doesn’t warrant the death penalty quite yet.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:04 amyeeeehawwww!!! I cheered when they announced it on Fox.
What’s scary is that it was 5-4. *shudder*
Just shows how important the Supreme Court replacements will be in the presidential election.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:08 amBe careful!
There are separate rules for Federal Property: you can be carrying lawfully one moment and committing a felony the next, just by crossing a street! (Edit: Okay that’s a slight exaggeration, but only slight — seriously. Be aware of those Federal boundaries!)
How did he get on that bench again? Which part of ‘limited powers’ did he miss along the way????
We’re still doomed.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:13 amNext, we take Chicago!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 amJohn Paul Stevens is a complete asshat.
That is all.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:19 amRachel, I just blogged about it too, breaking all kinds of work rules!!!
No evidence of the Founders not wanting to limit tools that would serve as the last bulwark to tyranny??? Stevens is an ignorant cockdrip.
GRRRR.
Is it any surprise to anyone that the assclowns dissenting in addition to Stevens were Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:27 amI’m both excited and sudued. They got a big one right, but are only 1 of 3 this month.
I’m real curious on how this will effect crime in D.C.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 amhmmm… tonight’s Ladies Night at the range, maybe I should pay a visit. (I wish you had smileys loaded so I could insert the devil one here)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 amJustice Stevens should read the Federalist Papers; if he did he might realize the sheer absurdity of what he wrote!
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
- James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
- Alexander Hamilton
June 26th, 2008 at 10:58 amThe decision does NOT affirm an unfettered right to carry wherever you fell like, so don’t get too happy. It does not, for example, strike down any concealed carry laws. It doesn’t even bar licensing of handguns.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:06 amI was nervous about this today, and I’m SO VERY HAPPY.
And today I’m going to bask in the success, and attempt not to worry about WWBHOD.
Scalia is SO clear:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am*tap dances for Heller*
It’s about damn time. However, it truly is the “Kennedy Court”. The fact that none of the Court’s liberal wing could see that “the Right of the People to keep and bear arms” means that people have a right to be armed is staggering, especially as liberals like to portray themselves as being “for the people”.
A vote for Obama is a vote for more liberal justices on the Supreme Court - a truly frightening prospect.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:15 amI’m happy for this decision, but not for all of your reasons. I lived in the DC area and part of the reason I never moved into the city proper was because they didn’t have the same rights as those of people right across the river or in some cases, right across the street. This ruling will pull some of that back in line, and I for one am glad.
And that’s not saying that I’m anti-gun. It is possible to be liberal AND a gun-owner.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:21 amWow. I always thought the second amendment was actually intended to “limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” You kind of have to wonder what on earth he thought it was there for.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am@Tully The court got it right… No one I know is arguing for an unfettered right to own guns. The government has the right to place reasonable restrictions on the ownership, sale or transfer of firearms.
What the court did in this case was strike down unreasonable restrictions that effectively denied D.C. residents the right own a firearm and protect their homes and property.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:23 amWhat is frightening is that Kennedy could have had a bad dream one night and gone the other way. The guy is completely unpredictable.
It’s a true victory for limited government, but at the same time, if they were reading the same Constitution I am, it should have been a no-brainer 9-0. Stevens’ lame dissent only points up the fact that he needs to retire now.
Thank God for Scalia.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:33 amTully, I agree with you. But this is the first time in history that SCOTUS actually plainly said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. And since the ACLU has been relying on Miller to perpetuate their ridiculous “collective rights” theory, when Miller decided nothing of the sort, this is a step in the right direction for us.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:33 amJeff
Jeff, with all due respect, *I’M* arguing for an unfettered right to keep and bear arms. That’s what the Constitution says, and that is what it means. Governments have no rights. They have authority given to them by the people. The moment you start placing restrictions on fundamental rights, they cease being rights and become little more than government-granted privileges.
(I’m waiting to see how long it takes someone to bring in the “fire in a crowded theater” argument as a prop for the “reasonable restriction” claim)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:36 amAbsolutely awesome.
It is pretty frightening that Justice Stevens thinks that the Constitution isn’t limiting Governmental power when it comes to … in general really. Didn’t Hamilton say he didn’t want a Bill of Rights because he didn’t want future governments to get the idea that they can do anything that wasn’t explicitly written in the Constitution?
One could wonder if Stevens thinks the same thing about the First Amendement. Or Third. Or any other Amendment. One could wonder, but then again, we already know liberals are illogical and irrational, so no. He would never think that about any other Amendment.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:41 amThere’s no need to bring up fire in a theater - laws about libel and slander have been well established as not violating the first Amendment. A better cliche would be “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
There’s no reason that we should give felons and the mentally unstable or mentally retarded full access to firearms. These people wouldn’t be able to participate in the militia anyway.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:44 amBob, what we’re talking about here is prior restraint of the law-abiding. I’m not talking about those who are not capable of exercising their rights or those who have lost them via committing a felony. I wouldn’t give a gun to a toddler, because he wouldn’t be able to effectively handle it, and I wouldn’t hand one to a mentally ill person. That is not to say a nutbag won’t be able to get one despite existing laws. No matter how many laws we implement, do you honestly think a felon won’t be able to get a gun? Seriously?
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but certain rights are inalienable. If we have the right to life, we certainly have the right to defend that life with the best tools available on the market. What we DON’T have the right to do is abuse those tools and deprive others of rights. Unfettered right to keep and bear arms in and of itself does not infringe on anyone else’s right to life, liberty or property.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 amNicki,
There’s a difference between acknowledging a crime and condoning it. So yeah, we have a huge number of laws on the books going back all the way to 1934.
But I mean, I guess I’m not certain how specific you mean. Because there really isn’t prior restraint of the law-abiding - unless you count licensing as “restraint”. We license people to drives cars, but nobody would consider that prior restraint to owning one. And you don’t even have to get licensed to own a gun in every State.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am@ Nicki Fellenzer, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on unfettered part.
BTW I added you to my blog roll.
@BoB, exactly.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:58 amThe 2nd amendment explicitly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing ambiguous there. The fact that 4 SCOTUS justices think there is something ambiguous there is hella scary.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pmFrom one of the Politico commenters:
Yeah, dumbass, the ban was doing a great job of protecting criminals from the law abiding.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pmUh….I use to live 5 miles from the Pentagon.And I clocked many an hour downtown at bars in H St. and U St.
And this ruling make me feel safer to walk down H St.
So I dont know what some of these morons you quoted are talking about.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pmFantastic! I had to blog it too. I’ve already got an anti-gunner in my comments.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pmOf course HuffPo is upset. That is their default setting. Love the irresponsible picture. We all know never to point a gun at anything we don’t plan to shoot. Cameraman beware!
The two most likely Supreme Court retirees in the next four years are liberals who were in the dissent on this, so merely replacing them with more liberals would not be a hard flip.
Scalia and Kennedy are also old enough to be possibilities, and really anything can happen so court appointments are going to be critical. I just like to be precise.
I actually think anybody nominated by McAmnesty and confirmed by a Democrat Senate is going to be a centrist-statist-liberal republican themselves, but it beats the communists that Obama would nominate.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pmYeah sometimes, I almost think that’s exactly what they want to do. Like in Britain, where they’re trying to figure out how to control crime when anytime someone fights back against a criminal they’re arrested.
For liberals, the only entity that is allowed to fight or even contest crime, is the State.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pmWell, I was gonna say what daveg said, but he already said it, so…
Hm.
Oh well. This is good news. After I heard the results of the ruling on the death penalty for child rapists, I became very worried about how this one would pan out.
Even thought it’s already been said, I want to reiterate how scary it is that this ruling was only 5-4. Yikes.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pmOh my. That one ought to get himself fitted for his government-provided manacles at his earliest convenience.
No, those invented rights are all prefaced with pretty words like ‘penumbra’ - really, you can’t miss them.
No, what’s telling is that you can’t tell a constitutional right from an unconstitutional income redistribution masked as a right.
These people are frighteningly uninformed and short-sighted.
Thank goodness there are still five justices that remember why we have a Constitution in the first place.
These people need to remember that these decisions may not always go the way they want them to; they may someday find that rights that they thought to be inalienable and truths that they believed to be self-evident have been taken away from them by five unelected judges.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pmWouldn’t it be great if people like those commenters would put “Gun-free Zone” signs on their houses?
But I wonder: even then, would they do the math correctly?
Seriously? I was born in GTU Hosp., and there is no way I would go back and walk unarmed in the neighborhood where I was born! Not after reading stories like this, and this, and this!
The following is an excerpt from the second article (from October, 2006 — a time when handguns were banned!):
But that Politico commenter is only worried now????
June 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pmI have the feeling that an Obama Supreme Court would find the Constitution unconstitutional.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pmSo the words “… shall not be infringed” is not evidence of an attempt to limit government? How does such a complete moron get to be a judge? As others have pointed out, the whole point of the Constitution is to limit what the government can do. I guess Stevens was absent the day they taught law at law school.
And I hope the lefty pants wetters are scared. I hope they’re terrified. I hope they shove their heads so far back up their butts that they disappear. I hope they curl themselves into a fetal position and never come out.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm“…that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR, with these unalienable rights…”
Fuckin’ straight it’s a God-given right. Every right you have is God-given. Neither the constitution or the government gives you a right. All the constitution does is enumerate what those rights actually ARE.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pmThe good guys won this one!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pmAs others have said….barely and thats a little un-nerving..but I’ll take it all the same!!
It’s a metaphor for life, in a fight always back the side with the guns. Also, never enter a land war in Asia.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pmYou know, whenever I read lefty comments regarding pretty much anything, I’m left with the impression that most-not all- were dropped on their heads as infants. Repeatedly.
As I said some months ago, I figured that Heller would come down on the side of the people, but would also leave plenty of wiggle room for “sensible legislation”. Other than outright bans, such as the one in DC, I believe that we’re likely to see a rash of new “sensible” gun control laws. While I’m pleased that Heller reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right, rather than a collective one, I’m still not certain that this will be a net positive going forward. Except for the residents of DC, of course.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pmmeh. the same bewigged lawyers who chose for us our president, who determine which of our duly-enacted laws they will allow to exist, will now permit us to (temporarily)(with various “sensible” *restrictions*, of course) permit us to follow our constitution for a little while longer. “the great and powerful wise men on the USSC throne grant you, the peasantry, this privilege.”
yeah, it’s better news than if they’d denied us what our constitution says we already have, but screw ‘em just the same.
think control-freak president hussein/mccain won’t go after your guns? think they won’t try again? think the plan is to allow the constitution to survive much longer? they inserted a nationwide fingerprinting program in a *mortgage* bill. they inserted a ‘must report *all* transactions to the federal government’ proviso in a (housing?) bill. oddly, they have not chosen to publicize that much. “but hey! you rubes can hang onto your little light arms awhile longer! isn’t that great?!?”
if you have a cold and need sudafed, you must show your ID, which in my state, is duly scanned and recorded.
so yay for us today, but let’s not go all silly.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI’m kind of curious what’s going to happen to those States what have constitutions that say that its not an individual right.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pmFive to four in our favor. That means we’re just one pointy headed liberal away from losing those sorts of decisions. Think about whom you want to appoint the next Supreme Court justice when you cast your ballot this November!
June 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pmThat is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm“would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Frightening that a SC justice believes that the constitution was written from the perspective of government rights. We were a bad day for justice Kennedy away from losing the 2nd ammendment
June 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pmI dunno. The executive who created New Coke probably must have said some doozies before he was drop kicked to the unemployment line.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pmJeff Setaro, just because you like the decision and find it balanced does not mean the court got it right. But I’m happy enough with the first part of the holding.
Now, what restrictions on that right are reasonable was not really addressed past a very few, nor was the standard to be used, though Scalia pretty clearly said “rational basis” was not it. We’re going to see a LOT more cases now, a real buttload of people challenging all aspects of firearms law.
Of course, I already have my CCW, but it’d be nice if I wasn’t subject to arrest because it wasn’t always completely concealed. A gap in my shirt shouldn’t be cause for arrest.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pmFive to Four is disappointing to say the least. I have lost confidence in the SCOTUS providing Constitutional guidance by the people, for the people. It’s become just another activist platform for flavor-of-the-day socialist political agendas.
Yes, the homicide rate will increase short-term, but now it will be the law-abiding citizens killing criminals in self-defense rather than the alternative!
Long-term, there won’t be any more criminals to rehabilitate, and crime rates will dramatically drop.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pmActually, it has nothing to do with *giving* people the right. That right is GOD-GIVEN (or the natural order of things, for the agnostics). Government cannot give us the right to defend ourselves, they can only try to take it away. And that is why the Second Amendment is where it is, right after the part that says we can say whatever the frack we want about dumbass liberal judges.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pmHeh. I remember when the Brady Campaign said the same thing about Florida back when we struck down those stupid “duty to retreat” laws.
It’s been more than a year now and I don’t see any random firefights breaking out.
Dear Lord save me from ignoramuses with delusions of intellect.
Typical leftist blather.
Conservatives believe every law-abiding American has an individual right to own guns if they so choose, therefore we want people armed to the teeth. Conservatives believe the individual states should be able to execute rapists if they so choose, as the 10th Amendment allows them to, and somehow this means we want to execute people for “non-capital crimes” (nevermind that a capital crime is nothing more than a crime that carries a sentence of death). Conservatives believe that foreign terrorists do not deserve the right to be tried in a civilian court, so we want people locked up in “prison camps” forever and ever.
Lets turn this logic around, shall we?
Liberals believe every woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses, therefore they want people to get abortions. Liberals believe that anyone who wants to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes should be free to do so, therefore they want people high on weed at all times. Liberals believe that Affirmative Action is necessary to help black people overcome a “legacy of oppression”, therefore they want white people to give up their jobs to lesser-qualified black people.
Boy, this straw-man stuff is fun on a bun!
LOL
After nearly 8 years of screaming that George W. Bush is about to declare himself Dictator of America, liberals have NO right to complain about this.
As I recall, Timothy McVeigh blew up a building.
How would gun control have prevented that?
Sure…in the same sense that if you buy soap to wash yourself you’re more likely to slip on it and die one day.
Yes, it is. We happen to think being alive because you shot a mugger dead is more important than being neglected by a state-run “universal” healthcare system.
You know, if this impotent man-child were one of my students I’d be very tempted to whack him across the back of the head and damn the consequences.
First, you keep using that word, “activist”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Second, what part of “the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do you not understand?
Yes, because we all know it was just impossible for drug lords and terrorists to get handguns before.
Leftist mentality in a nutshell.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Because there’s no one was getting shot in DC before, right?
June 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pmWell, mightysamurai, you certainly ejaculated a veritable wad of thought provoking screed this time!
Yes? What’s straw man about this point? : )
And didn’t McVeigh use fertilizer? I remember my farmer husband panicking at the time about the prospect of overregulation of ammonium nitrate that we use on fields. (I had two under the age of two at the time. Often, I couldn’t even remember to put on pants, let alone read).
June 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pmIf someone can drag a troll in here you can see what it’s like when I really get going.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pmI’ve “dragged” you a troll, mighty … I’m waiting …
What? That’s a woman? NO F*CKING WAY!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pmAfter seeing that picture, I made that same exact face. It’s infinitely recursive horror!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pmBefore we all start ululating let’s take a minute to parse this decision.
SCOTUS has held that the prohibition of the ownership of guns is unconstitutional.
That does not mean however that the regulation of said guns is unconstitutional.
So the question is how far the government (Fed, State or Local) can go in “regulating” gun ownership.
This part of the issue is not resolved and until it is specifically government will continue to nibble at the edges until de facto prohibition by regulation is achieved.
SCOTUS has punted (as I predicted several months ago on this blog).
Death by a thousand cuts babe, death by a thousand cuts.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pmI recall a few years back when Minnesota passed a “shall issue” law for conceal carry, all the bedwetters were claiming there would be “running gun battles on the streets”…. blah blah blah… turns out more people have been killed by the equally controversial light rail than by conceal carry permit holders. And if I’m not mistaken it’s not even close, Light Rail 6 - Conceal Carry Permit Holders - 1 (or could even still be 0)
June 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pmYeah, sam, don’t ululate your screedwad too much.
You need to think about baseball or your grandmother.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pmThe regulations haven’t come yet!
With regard to the folks commenting on the Politico, I think only one movie quote actually is relevant:
“You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…morons.”
June 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pmThis is my favorite one:
That commenter is absolutely not from the D.C. area, because everyone there knows it’s already the wild west, and worse than the early 90’s! Objective facts are so damnably enlightening, it’s no wonder they are so studiously avoided by… some.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pmLarry the Cable Guy put it best (paraphrasing):
“If guns are to blame for killing folks, then I got some talking to do with that pencil of mine, ‘cuz it sure does misspell a lot of words.”
June 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pmNope. Sorry. I’m just a ‘ululate first, parse later’ kind of gal.
As I see it, my initial joy was justified insofar as the ruling of the day could well have gone either way. I did not expect this ruling to end the issue — anybody else seen Obama’s views on gun control? – but other than the puritanical need of some people to maintain a dour aspect, I see no harm in a little moment of ’squee’ over a victory, if only a small one!
June 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pmIt’s fun to watch the libtards heads explode! Pass the popcorn!
It is scary that the final count was so close. But Justice Scalia did a fantastic job outlining the reasons for the decision.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pmI could be wrong (I’m not a lawyer) but I believe that the kind of de facto gun ban you are referring to could also be challenged in court as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pmYee Hah!
June 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pmI’m having dinner tonight with a bunch of folks from opencarry.org - I’m betting it will be a fun evening. I also added a rifle to my collection today, so it shall be designated as my Heller Commemorative. And I’ll have it a lot longer than the 3K rounds of ammo I picked up today, too.
“Idiots. The ruling has nothing to do with being “in favor of guns.” It’s to do with giving decent people the right to own tools with which they can defend themselves against scumbags and the government itself. It’s really not that hard to understand.” As usual Rachel, you’re right on target! (pun intended) As far as scumbags and government are concerened, the latter seems to have an abundance of the former.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pmTolbert,
You are sadly correct my friend. The court punted hard.
There are two types of people in DC right now, gun owners and those who do not own guns. The problem is, that the people who own guns are all the criminals, muggers, murderers pimps, drug dealers, and mayors.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pmFelicity…
Go ahead, Squeeee!!!!!!
And thanks, mightysamurai, you spared me millions of sarcastic typing pixels!
I’m wary of what the court didn’t say, but I’m willing and happy to take half a loaf for now.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm“…It’s telling that the GOP views gun ownership as being more important than having health insurance.”
I absolutely despise arguments like this from the liberal side. It makes it sound like people can’t think about two subjects at once. Believe me, I have opinions on more than just one thing, and to be honest, I think that gun control issues are a lot easier to solve/make sense of than health care/health care reform/health insurance.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:44 pmThanks, Tully!
Sure, the oh-so-careful language about regulation (ick!) and the decision not to address licensing (pleh!) were disappointing; but the thoroughgoing defense of the Second Amendment’s protection of the individual (vs corporate) right? All that lovely history used to knock down the objections, point by point, by point?
Pure gold!
So, with your permission :),
June 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pmSQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Indeed!
This is minor, maybe, but it really stood out to me: “the GOP … wants people executed for non-capital crimes”
Capital crimes are, by definition, crimes that call for capital punishment. Everybody knows what that is, right? [Apparently not that commenter.]
This is the kind of retardery (retarderation?) that really honks me off. The obscure nitpicky kind.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:38 pmJeff, thank you very much for the add.
Bob
Prior restraint means prohibiting someone from having a certain type of weapon or from carrying it into a certain place, or prohibiting them from “keeping and bearing” arms. The right in and of itself is not a danger to anyone. It’s the abuse of said right that is a danger. Additionally, licensing to drive a car is a completely different thing. You don’t need a license to OWN a car - merely to operate it on a public road. If you purchase it and put it in your garage or drive it on a private road, no license is needed.
Additionally, RKBA is a right specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Driving is not. Apples and oranges.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pmIt’s telling that the GOP views gun ownership as being more important than having health insurance
I can personally attest that having a gun handy can BE a form of health insurance. Which is kind of the point of the 2nd.
But yeah, that’s a silly diversionary wingnutty argument.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pmI just checked the Politico post and it looks like there are lots more moonbats than Rachel let on. I reeeally want to go over there and bust some skulls but I can’t because I have an early appointment tomorrow.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:19 pmmightysam,
June 26th, 2008 at 11:02 pmWhen you have time to head over to the Politico post, please to let us know the reaction. I will also check your blog for the update.
Consider me a padowan in skullbustery, because I so very much enjoy your skills, Obi Wan. It’s rather entertaining and educational.
I was soooo freakin worried about this issue and now I can breathe again…until I see the absofuckinlutely assinine comments made by supposedly intelligent people…..
Im seeing so much red over some of those comments that all I can do is thank those of you who have posted here reassuring me that not everyone in the country is brain dead…you almost make me forget the Asshats. Thank you Rachel and thanks to the rest of you too.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:42 pmReading this blog gives me hope.I have been reading for a few weeks and I find some of the most intelligent content on the net. Thanks
June 27th, 2008 at 12:44 amI got here late. All of the good comments were already taken.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:03 amThis makes me want to go out and buy some more guns. And then, y’know, report them stolen. 5-4? Jesus Christ…
June 27th, 2008 at 4:32 amWild west? I’ve lived here my whole life, it’s been this way since the gun ban was instated in the 70’s. DC has been campaigning for the title “Murder Capitol” every year, it only misses out because other cities with equally stupid gun bans out shoot it.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:48 amBut, but, but, the handgun ban was passed in 1976. Arent the 90’s after the 70’s?
I knew the civics classes were a lost cause, I just didnt realize math had gone by the wayside too
Bill
June 27th, 2008 at 6:27 amSomeone pointed this out on Du Troit’s Blog:
9-0 “individual right”!
Yes, all nine wrote in their opinions that the 2nd describes an individual right rather than a collective one and like the 1st is meant to limit government.
So the ruling went a lot better than the MSM wants you to know.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:39 amIt’s always instructive to watch the Libs after they have been thwarted by the courts or the polls; they lose it completely and become fully hysterical.
In the first place, the anti-gun nits have been predicting the “return of the Wild West” with each tiny setback of their agenda for decades, and it never materializes. The slavish fawning of the Mainstream Media pretty much ensures that hey aren’t going to be asked any hard questions to challenge the assertion, but the public has long ago concluded that they are full of dung.
In the second place, the “Wild West” they refer to - with innocent people being gunned down left and right - exists almost exclusively in the collective imaginations of Hollywood. In the real “Old West” - which existed for a rather brief period - the gunslingers were fairly careful to limit their slaughter to each-other. Shoot a citizen and the other citizens turned up to discuss matters armed with shotguns. One gunslinger vs a dozen citizens with 12 Ga. doubles does NOT come out in the gunslinger’s favor.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:54 amDearRachel,
Just got in to work and have not read the entire comment roll, but wanted to point out a couple of things that have been missed (as far as I can see so far).
1. This does not mean anyone can own a gun in DC yet. The decision did not strike down the portion of the DC law that required guns to be licensed, and there are other laws regulating (ie, prohibiting) bringing guns into DC. So, unless you are a cop (and only because of a federal law that trumps DC laws), you cannot cross into DC with your gun, regardless of what kind of permit you have.
2. There are, as mentioned, Federal laws prohibiting guns on Federal property. It’s pretty easy to tell when you are crossing onto Federal property, though: there are cops/guards around.
3. One of the HuffPo commenters said that DC would now become the nation’s murder capital. What a laugh. It is now (technically, it has been in the top three consistently since the early 1990’s, and is usually either #1 or #2).
4. A few years ago I watched a local TV interview with a DC police LT, on the subject of crime especially home crime, and the interviewer asked the LT what advice he gave his family and friends. The cop said “we all own guns.” When the interveiwer asked the follow-up, the cop explained that police know they are a reactive force that can only bring the criminal to justice after the fact. The responsibility for prevention is with the potential victim. Consequently, he said that all DC cops’ families have guns at home for protection, despite them being illegal, because the penalty for violating the gun laws was a lot less severe than the penalty for being defenseless.
v/r
June 27th, 2008 at 7:17 ammike
Mike Heute is right, guns may not be legal in DC yet.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:24 amDid anybody else’s comments ‘disappear’ from Ben Smith’s blog? All of mine did….
June 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am